Eur Radiol 2017 27(2):821–830 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar A multicentre randomized double-blind trial. Comparative assessment of image quality for coronary CT angiography with iobitridol and two contrast agents with higher iodine concentrations: iopromide and iomeprol. Image quality in CT perfusion imaging of the brain. König M, Bültmann E, Bode-Schnurbus L, Koenen D, Mielke E, Heuser L. Supplemental MRI Screening for Women with Extremely Dense Breast Tissue. Bakker MF, de Lange SV, Pijnappel RM, et al. Performance of Dual-Energy Contrast-enhanced Digital Mammography for Screening Women at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer. BIRADS 4 breast lesions: comparison of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and contrast-enhanced MRI. Low-Dose Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Compared to Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI: A Feasibility Study. Clauser P, Baltzer PAT, Kapetas P, et al. The value of CESM in the evaluation of intraductal breast papilloma: a comparative study with DCE-MRI. Can contrast-enhanced mammography replace dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the assessment of sonomammographic indeterminate breast lesions? Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2020 51(1):66. Kamal R, Hanafy M, Mansour S, Hassan M, Gomaa M. Preclinical study of diagnostic performances of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI for breast diseases in China. Wang Q, Li K, Wang L, Zhang J, Zhou Z, Feng Y. Comparison between breast MRI and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography. Łuczyńska E, Heinze-Paluchowska S, Hendrick E, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME, et al. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. mammography and MRI - clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. Fallenberg EM, Schmitzberger FF, Amer H, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG PRISMA Group. Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Tagliafico AS, Bignotti B, Rossi F, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. A meta-analysis of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Pain experienced by women attending breast cancer screening. Keemers-Gels ME, Groenendijk RP, van den Heuvel JH, Boetes C, Peer PG, Wobbes TH. Supplemental screening using breast MRI in women with mammographically dense breasts. Contrast-enhanced Mammography: State of the Art. Breast MRI: EUSOBI recommendations for women’s information. Mann RM, Balleyguier C, Baltzer PA, et al. Breast MRI screening for average-risk women: A monte carlo simulation cost-benefit analysis. Supplemental Breast MRI for Women with Extremely Dense Breasts: Results of the Second Screening Round of the DENSE Trial. Veenhuizen SGA, de Lange SV, Bakker MF, et al. Association of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography With Cancer Detection and Recall Rates by Age and Breast Density. Conant EF, Barlow WE, Herschorn SD, et al. Dense Breast Ultrasound Screening After Digital Mammography Versus After Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. Dibble EH, Singer TM, Jimoh N, Baird GL, Lourenco AP. Novel Approaches to Screening for Breast Cancer. Volumetric breast density affects performance of digital screening mammography. Wanders JOP, Holland K, Veldhuis WB, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al. Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society. Oeffinger KC, Fontham ETH, Etzioni R, et al.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |